Australia: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Buliding section. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) Continue building section with addition of Richards paper. |
||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
}}</ref></blockquote> | }}</ref></blockquote> | ||
Richards (1996) discussed non-therapeutic circumcision of boys. He concluded: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
Ritual male circumcision is non-therapeutic and is not warranted or justified by medical evidence. This form of mutilation should not be legally distinguished from female circumcision which is a form of female genital mutilation presently in the process of being prohibited throughout Australia and the Western world. As ritual male circumcision is non-therapeutic, may be against public policy, and clearly is not in the best interests of the child, a parent's consent may be vitiated, leaving persons involved in the procedure liable in negligence, notwithstanding parental religious beliefs. Alternatively, if a medical practitioner fails to give the parent reasonable information on the risks of and alternatives to ritual circumcision, the practitioner may also be liable in negligence.<ref name="richards1996">{{REFjournal | |||
|last=Richards | |||
|first=David | |||
|author-link= | |||
|title=Male Circumcision: Medical or Ritual? | |||
|journal=J Law Med | |||
|date=1996 | |||
|volume=3 | |||
|issue= | |||
|pages=371 | |||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/richards/ | |||
|accessdate=2019-10-31 | |||
}}</ref> | |||
</blockquote> | |||